Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal restored the impugned issues back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to explain and prove the genuineness of the loan received from Mr. Umesh Shinde. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents and submissions before the lower authorities, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal decided to remit the grounds raised on merit back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present proof of the land sale and sale consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating 80% of the cash deposits as explained solely on the basis that the assessee was a petrol outlet. The assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence, such as sales register or cash book, to substantiate the source of the deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit all requisite details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit all requisite details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the Supreme Court's decision in the AUDA's case.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and had not filed any adjournment application. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had valid reasons for levying the penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for underreporting income due to misreporting.
The Tribunal held that the addition/disallowance forming the basis for the penalty had been deleted by a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty had no legs to stand and was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned issue(s) needed examination in light of the Supreme Court's observations in the AUDA's case, considering the facts and merits of the assessee's case for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed after the Supreme Court's judgment in AUDA's case, but the latter was not taken into cognizance. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in the assessee's case for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, where similar matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of AUDA's case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to his file for denovo adjudication on merits, in light of the AUDA's case, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee was directed to file submissions without seeking adjournment unless for a reasonable cause. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the statutory requirements by filing Form 10BB within the due date and that the exemption claimed under Section 10(23C)(via) and Section 11 of the Act was allowable. The CPC erred in not rectifying the apparent mistake.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO is justified, as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. is clear. The case-laws relied upon by the appellant are no longer applicable. The addition made by the AO is confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 379 days in filing the appeal, taking a liberal approach in the interest of justice, considering the illness of the key personnel as a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the sole grievance of the assessee was the rejection of its application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi). The rejection by the CIT(E) was based on the assessee's failure to furnish information and details despite sufficient opportunities. In the larger interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of regular registration back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to update its contact details on the income tax portal and avoid seeking adjournments without reasonable cause. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the application solely on account of a wrong code, without considering the merits, was not appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order approving the resolution plan was dated after the assessment order and the appeal filing. Since the assessee claimed extinguishment of dues due to the NCLT order, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for examination of the NCLT order and necessary action.
The Tribunal condoned the 649-day delay, accepting the explanation as a 'reasonable cause'. On merits, it noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, instructing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustments were made without considering the assessee's details and without providing an opportunity. The issues regarding salary income, TDS, and FTC deserved to be restored to the AO for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited under section 44AB, as the re-sale of flats and adjustment of previously offered income was based on a belief regarding tax liability. Therefore, penalty under section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable hearing opportunity and pass a speaking order.
The ITAT agreed with the assessee that a proper opportunity was denied due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the sum as advances for church construction but failed to provide sufficient details or evidence. The assessee's application for additional evidence before the CIT(A) was rejected, and the assessment order was confirmed.
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee was not represented and considering the possibility of notices through the ITBA portal going unnoticed, decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the proof of agricultural income was in the name of the assessee's brother, the genuineness of the agricultural income earned by the assessee was not disputed. Considering the agricultural income as a potential source, the Tribunal granted a partial relief.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application and decided to remit the issues to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for approval u/s.80G(5) should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for necessary adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the DCIT(CPC) was not justified. Following previous decisions, it was observed that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which pertains to disallowing deductions for delayed returns, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not receive the notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed the donation details before the Assessing Officer but had provided them before the CIT(A). Since these were not considered by the CIT(A) and were crucial, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, despite possessing relevant details concerning their business dealings, failed to provide them before the lower authorities. To ensure justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity for the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and submit documents, with a remand report to be obtained.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following its consistent view and previous decisions in similar cases. Therefore, the assessee's claim was allowed.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits even ex-parte. It was found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit. Therefore, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Act. The provisions for VPI and doubtful debts were contingent in nature and should have been added back to taxable income. The Assessing Officer's failure to seek explanation or make the addition rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the assessee's request. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, and the grounds of appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the circumstances preventing the assessee's appearance. It also acknowledged that a coordinate bench had set aside a similar order for the assessee's brother, remanding the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reason for the delay, i.e., the assessment order going into the spam folder, constituted a sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that a liberal approach should be taken for condoning delays. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit all required details and substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that the due date for filing the return was extended by CBDT Notification No. 20/2022 to 07.11.2022, and the assessee had filed the return within this extended period. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal, relying on CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (SC), held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law, especially when all particulars were disclosed and the legal position was sub judice with a favorable High Court decision at the time, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence on minor technical grounds without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether interest income earned by a cooperative society from other cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) has been consistently decided in favour of cooperative societies by coordinate benches of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that in all the decisions relied upon by the assessee, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Sale Society Ltd. had already been considered. The Tribunal specifically referred to the decision in N Sai Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (ITA No.1109/PUN/2024) which allowed the appeal by following earlier coordinate bench decisions. The reasoning was that the issue was covered by multiple precedents from coordinate benches, which had already taken into account the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars Sale Society. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Following previous decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are indeed cooperative societies and therefore the interest income earned by the assessee from them is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's absence. Considering the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal held that a wrong selection of a section code/clause in the application form should not be considered a fatal defect. It found that the CIT(E) should have granted an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the error. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to allow the appellant to file the correct application and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 562-day delay, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the issues of regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, granting the appellant another opportunity to make submissions as it failed to appear before lower authorities.