Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 333 days, stating it was due to a reasonable cause. Since the merits of the case were not dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication, and the assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of M/s. Krishna Rice Mill were not in dispute. The genuineness of the funds was proved as they were received from the assessee's husband, and his business had declared a net profit. Therefore, the addition was uncalled for.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), considering the Supreme Court judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation and the circumstances of the pandemic. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored all issues raised by the assessee to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, considering the larger interest of justice. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the 587-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and a liberal approach to substantial justice. The issue of addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper verification. The ground regarding the addition of Rs. 75,001/- was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the rectification applications under Section 154 of the Act for the impugned assessment years were admittedly belated, a sympathetic and liberal approach should be taken in the larger interest of justice, especially when the delay is for reasons beyond the control of the assessee and due to genuine hardship. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2017-18, a similar rectification application was filed within the time limit and accepted by the Assessing Officer, who granted the necessary relief after examining the contents and documents submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer's order for AY 2017-18 acknowledged that the trust was a specific trust, income was distributed among beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries had offered their share to tax. The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in Bansal Propbuild Private Limited Vs. CIT, condoned the delay in filing the rectification applications. The matter was restored to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to entertain the applications and decide them in accordance with the law, considering the favorable order passed for AY 2017-18. The impugned orders were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), taking into consideration the reasonable cause due to pandemic restrictions. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the applications were belated, in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the rectification applications considering the earlier order for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that prior to 01.04.2021, CPC could not make prima facie adjustments for disallowing deduction under Section 80P for delay in filing the return, as the relevant legislative amendment was prospective. Consequently, the disallowance made by CPC and confirmed by CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that even if exemption u/s.11 is not available, total income should be computed by allowing genuine expenses incurred against gross receipts, rather than taxing gross receipts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the exhibition expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide necessary details to the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, granted another opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for necessary adjudication, with the direction for the assessee to furnish supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10E is a procedural requirement and that relief should not be denied if the form is filed belatedly, especially when there is no mala fide intention or negligence. The matter was remanded back to the AO for verification and grant of eligible relief.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for reasonable cause and condoned it. Consequently, all issues, including the merits of the additions and the jurisdictional challenge to the reassessment proceedings, were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that even if exemption u/s.11 is not available, total income should be computed by allowing genuine expenses incurred against gross receipts, rather than taxing gross receipts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the exhibition expenses.
The Tribunal held that while the applications were belated, in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the rectification applications considering the earlier order for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that while the applications were belated, in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the rectification applications considering the earlier order for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 459 days in filing the appeal, finding merit in the assessee's explanation regarding technical glitches and lack of computer literacy, and following the liberal approach advocated by the Supreme Court in cases like Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/-, the Tribunal observed significant discrepancies and lack of clarity in the AO's assessment. The AO's order lacked clarity regarding the factual matrix, mentioning different bank accounts and amounts deposited, and failed to obtain information u/s 133(6). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's findings without appreciating the facts. The assessee's submission that cash withdrawals exceeded deposits and that the Rs. 11,00,000/- figure was not supported by bank records was noted. The Tribunal found that the facts were not appreciated in the correct perspective and lacked requisite examination. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee-fund is not approved under Section 10(23AAA), it should be assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP), and only the net income should be subjected to tax, not the gross receipts. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the facts and allow deductions.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to comply with the prescribed rules for adopting an 'other method' and did not provide sufficient justification for rejecting the assessee's benchmarking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had adequately demonstrated the receipt of services and the benefits derived therefrom.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the cash in hand as on 01.04.2016. However, the cash transactions from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 needed to be examined to verify the source of alleged cash deposit. The issue of credit for prepaid taxes also needed examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause. While the assessee claimed it had consistently received exemption, the necessary details to prove the nature of its activities were not filed before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the limited time given to the assessee to submit details and the lack of further clarification sought by the AO after submission.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view after considering the assessee's reply and relevant details, thus the order was not erroneous. Consequently, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to appear and present its case with proper documentation. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee for its past non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds on merit. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which clarified that the CIT(A) is obliged under Section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act to make further inquiries if necessary and dispose of the appeal in writing by stating points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) empower the CIT(A) to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment. The Explanation to Section 251(2) further mandates the CIT(A) to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings, even if not raised by the appellant. Therefore, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing requisite details, considering the bank's liquidation.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with requisite details. The assessee is strictly cautioned against seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with requisite details. The assessee is strictly cautioned against seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting a final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 213 days, finding that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G without providing adequate opportunities to the assessee to present its case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised grounds concerning the violation of the principle of natural justice, arguing that the CIT(E) made presumptions without further opportunities for hearing or submission. The judgment also highlighted the assessee's contention that the reasons for rejection under Section 12AB were adequately addressed in their initial response, and that the application under Section 80G was not time-barred. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional registration by noting that the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated and did not comply with the notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to provide a proper opportunity for hearing and submission, especially concerning the time-bar issue for Section 80G. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and to submit its response.