Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a section code/clause is not fatal and cannot disentitle the assessee to its claim. The Tribunal relied on various precedents where similar mistakes were treated leniently. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while non-compliance occurred, it may have been due to unavoidable circumstances. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had reasonable cause and no intention to delay. The Tribunal further held that the CPC had exceeded its jurisdiction in making the prima facie adjustment denying deduction under Section 80P, as the powers for such disallowance due to delayed return filing were granted to the CPC only from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a section code/clause in Form 10AB would not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim and cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings. The Tribunal found that this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by several Tribunal decisions, including the Pune Bench in UV Patel Foundation. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption)'s file. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to file the correct application or treat the original application as filed under the correct section and decide the case on merits denovo, after granting one final opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and submit required details without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal concerning Section 80G was also set aside to the file of the CIT(Exemption) in the same terms, as it was consequential to the Section 12A registration.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code/clause in the application, while an error, is not fatal to the assessee's claim. The Tribunal followed previous decisions which allowed similar cases to be decided afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merit and had dismissed them for non-prosecution, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeals were restored to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC in the name of a deceased assessee without impleading the legal heir was improper. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after hearing the legal heir.
The Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that Explanation 2 to Section 263, introduced by the Finance Act, 2015, states that an assessment order passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT had arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the AO had not made the necessary inquiries. The Tribunal also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT, relied upon by the assessee, was for an earlier assessment year and the Explanation to Section 263 was introduced later, making the case law not applicable. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not fully discharged its onus to substantiate expenses, the 15% disallowance upheld by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the audited accounts and past business volume. Therefore, the disallowance was further reduced.
The Tribunal held that the erroneous selection of a section code is not a fatal mistake and should not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act for not going into the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the erroneous selection of a section code by the assessee is not fatal and should not disentitle them from their rightful claim. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the application and be heard.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code/clause is not fatal and should not disentitle the assessee from their claim. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that Cooperative Banks are fundamentally Cooperative Societies, and interest income earned from their deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on a catena of its own decisions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and comply with future notices without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merit and had dismissed them for non-prosecution, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeals were restored to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit details and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was directed to submit details without adjournment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit all relevant documents and evidence to substantiate its case, after which the CIT(E) is to decide the application on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case, considering the possibility of notices being sent to an old email address.
The Tribunal held that since the return was filed beyond the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act, Section 80AC was rightly invoked to disallow the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. It further noted that any condonation for delay in filing the return would require an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which was not filed.
The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a section code/clause in the e-filing of Form 10AB would not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim and cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the Pune Bench decision in U V Patel Foundation, where a similar order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside with a direction to decide the application afresh by treating it as filed under the correct section. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the CIT(Exemption). The impugned order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) to give the assessee an opportunity to file the correct application or treat the original application as filed under the correct section, and then decide the case on merits denovo after granting one final opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and submit required details without seeking adjournments. Since the 80G approval was consequential to the 12A registration, the appeal concerning 80G was also set aside to the file of the CIT(Exemption) on similar terms. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit details and for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while it was an admitted fact that the assessee had failed to comply despite several opportunities, leading to ex-parte orders of dismissal for non-prosecution, the CIT(A)/NFAC had also failed to decide the appeals on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 250(6) mandates that the order of the CIT(A) shall be in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. In the present case, this was not done. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the case and decide the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order as contemplated under Section 250(6). The assessee was directed to file requisite details without seeking adjournment. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the medical condition of the assessee's representative and technical issues with e-filing. The Tribunal found that the adhoc disallowance by the AO was not sustainable as the assessee regularly made URD purchases, maintained quantitative records, and the AO only conducted a test-check verification. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost 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 is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that supported this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, following the Bombay High Court's decision.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on interest income from Cooperative Banks to the Assessing Officer for verification, acknowledging its eligibility based on precedents. For the PF/ESI disallowance, it held that employer's contributions, though delayed, would not affect total income eligible for Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction, but employee's contributions deposited late would be added back. This issue was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for deduction u/s.80P. The failure to e-verify the return within the initial period was a technical glitch, and subsequent e-verification with relaxation provided by CBDT circular was accepted. The provisions of section 80A(5) were considered, and it was found that the assessee had made a valid claim in the return filed in response to the notice.
The Tribunal observed that no fair opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee by the lower authorities. Therefore, to provide one more opportunity and in the larger interest of justice, the issues were remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days in filing the appeals in ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the application for registration under Section 12A and cancelled the provisional registration, and consequently rejected the application for approval under Section 80G. The assessee argued that the CIT(E) had not examined the relevant facts and submissions on merits concerning the alleged violation of Section 36A(3) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, and the delay in filing the 80G application. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issues afresh on merits after granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was also directed to submit any required documents without seeking adjournments unless there was a reasonable cause. The grounds raised in ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, ITA Nos. 401 & 402/PUN/2025 became infructuous and were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days in filing the appeals (ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025), following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that meritorious matters should not be thrown out on limitation. Regarding the merits of the case (issues 2), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not fully considered the assessee's submissions regarding the advances from trustees and the lack of action by the Charity Commissioner. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(E) had not examined the relevant facts and submissions on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issues afresh on merits after granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was also directed to submit any further required documents without seeking adjournments unless there was a reasonable cause. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, ITA Nos. 401 & 402/PUN/2025 were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on housing loan to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For interest expenditure, the Tribunal allowed the claim. The issue of agricultural income and Chapter VI-A deductions were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the use of the word 'Penalty' in the order under Section 201(1) was a typographical error, as confirmed by the show-cause notice and the demand notice, which clearly indicated 'Tax and Interest'. The Tribunal further noted that the proviso to Section 201 places the onus on the assessee to furnish a certificate from a Chartered Accountant if they claim no tax was deductible. Since no such certificate was filed and the assessee's oral assurance lacked evidentiary value, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days in filing appeals ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025, respectfully following the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not fully examined the relevant facts and submissions pertaining to the alleged violation of Section 36A(3) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee argued that no action was taken by the Charity Commissioner, the advances were from earlier years, and the CIT(E) had not considered these points. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issues afresh on merits. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case, and directed to submit any required documents without seeking adjournments unless for reasonable cause. The grounds raised in ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, appeals ITA Nos. 401 & 402/PUN/2025 were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court rulings that distinguished the Totagars case and affirmed the eligibility of such income for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income. It found that the Assessing Officer had not properly appreciated the facts and that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the AO's finding without ascertaining all facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost 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 is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that supported this view.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that distinguished the Totagars case and affirmed the eligibility of such income for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days in filing the appeals, respectfully following the Supreme Court decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not considered the relevant facts and submissions filed by the assessee concerning the alleged violation of Section 36A(3) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The Tribunal observed that the advances were made in earlier years, were interest-free, and had been reflected in the accounts without objection. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both sets of appeals (ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025 and ITA Nos. 401 & 402/PUN/2025) to the file of the CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issues afresh on merits after granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The appeals in ITA Nos. 403 & 404/PUN/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes, and appeals in ITA Nos. 401 & 402/PUN/2025 were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and a nullity. Consequently, any adjustment proposed based on such an order cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was a non-speaking order on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act, as it dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the substantive issue raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.