Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A, finding no infirmity in the order based on the AO's own remand report. The issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the disallowance of expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and circulars allowing condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal condoned a 16-day delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's business transactions and bank credits, the Tribunal noted the absence of regular returns and proper details. Consequently, the income was estimated at 8% of the estimated total turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as may be required or called upon. The CIT(E) is directed to decide both applications of the assessee under Section 12A and Section 80G of the Act afresh on merits, as per facts and law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournments, unless for sufficient cause, failing which the CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the final decision on the merits of the applications is to be taken by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and circulars allowing condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for ex-post-facto approval from the Charity Commissioner. Following precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that Health and Education Cess cannot be levied on tax determined under the DTAA, following decisions of the Delhi High Court and ITAT Pune. The levy of such cess is not permissible when specific DTAA rates are applied.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was on a technical ground of delay, with no adverse findings on the merits of the case. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return voluntarily within the prescribed time limit, and the revised income was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any addition, no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without any basis and without proper application of mind. The reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be vague and lacked specific details regarding the bank account and transaction.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case, considering the interest of justice and the possibility that the application might not be time-barred. The assessee was directed to provide all required details without adjournment.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case with requisite details, provided it appeared without seeking further adjournments. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A, finding no infirmity in the order based on the AO's own remand report. The issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the disallowance of expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting the principles of natural justice regarding short notice periods, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption). It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must comply without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case with requisite details, provided it appeared without seeking further adjournments. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to submit all required details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee is also directed to appear on the appointed date without seeking adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction for interest income earned from cooperative banks by a cooperative society is well settled, and numerous decisions, including Supreme Court judgments, support such deductions. Regarding the NPA provision, the Tribunal found that if disallowed, it would increase business income eligible for Section 80P deduction, making the revision an academic exercise.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of capital gains was deleted by the Tribunal and the exemption under section 54F was allowed by the CIT(A) subsequently, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the deduction under Section 80P was allowed in a previous year based on identical facts. It also acknowledged the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order.
The Tribunal held that the rejection based on filing under the wrong clause was a procedural error, especially when the assessee claimed it was inadvertent. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) to decide afresh, treating the application as filed under the correct section and allowing the assessee an opportunity to file a fresh application if needed.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without proof of service of statutory notices on him during his lifetime is bad in law. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for proceedings against legal representatives, but the initial proceedings must be validly initiated.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's stated intention to settle the pending disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2024, supported by the filing of a declaration and receipt of Form-2. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, holding that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were initiated after April 1, 2021, with a notice dated 31.03.2022. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Limited, and the Delhi High Court's decision in Pratishta Garg, the Tribunal noted the Revenue's concession that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, must be dropped as they do not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The Tribunal also allowed Ground No. 3, finding that the assessee had fulfilled the onus cast upon him by submitting the bank statement of the lender, confirmation, and a notarized affidavit from Shri Nikhil Vijay Bakare, which clearly stated the loan amount, mode of repayment, and its subsequent repayment by cheque. The addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was therefore deleted. Ground No. 2 regarding jurisdiction was dismissed as unadjudicated, as the primary grounds were decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4 was dismissed as the assessee did not amend any grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee failed to comply with the notices, it was not intentional, and an opportunity should be granted to present the case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.
For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case by filing requisite details, with a strict warning against seeking further adjournments. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite multiple opportunities. However, the judgment does not explicitly state a decision on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim. The operative direction for AY 2015-16 was to remand the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after granting an opportunity to the assessee. The judgment does not record any specific finding or decision on the Section 80P issue for AY 2016-17, nor does it mention the outcome for AY 2020-21, other than stating the appeals were heard together.
The Tribunal restored both issues (excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rate) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the excess cane price, it directed consideration in light of Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act. For the sugar sale, it directed the AO to consider specific documents, the State Government's GR, and calculate differences based on levy price instead of market price.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's stated intention to settle the pending disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2024, supported by the filing of a declaration and receipt of Form-2. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the non-compliance might be due to a communication gap and that the assessee is willing to provide the necessary documents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on a previous ITAT order that had quashed the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the revision proceedings were invalid as the AO had examined the issue and taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte order and the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit the requisite details and decide the issue on merits, with the assessee mandated to comply without adjournment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of unfamiliarity with the e-portal and negligence by the tax consultant as 'reasonable cause'. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, instructing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of a remand report if needed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and circulars allowing condonation of such delays.
Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit the requisite details and decide the issue on merits, with the assessee mandated to comply without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and circulars allowing condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and circulars allowing condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal held that Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, which mandates furnishing of an audit report along with the return of income, is applicable only for claiming deduction under Section 11. However, the assessee in this case claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Tribunal noted that Section 10(23C)(iiiad) applies to any university or educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit, if its aggregate annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed amount. The assessee's receipts were Rs. 33,28,804/-, and the Tribunal found that the assessee qualifies for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Regarding Ground No. 4, which argued that entire receipts cannot be taxed, the Tribunal noted that after considering expenditures, there was hardly any surplus. However, since the primary ground for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was allowed, this ground was not adjudicated further. Other grounds were also dismissed as unadjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding the case on merit, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had condoned a similar delay for the A.Y. 2011-12 on identical facts and affidavit. Therefore, the CIT(A) was precluded from taking divergent views. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including court orders and bank guarantees, stating they go to the root of the issue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the case for denovo adjudication in light of the additional evidence. The assessee was directed to file all relevant documents before the AO, who was to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the reasons provided. The Tribunal restored the issue of registration and approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.