Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 2 of 5
Following a precedent from the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2015-16. The matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order de novo, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and direction for diligent compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order based on amended Section 251(1)(a) as the assessment was not made under Section 144. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide submissions despite multiple opportunities before the CIT(A)/NFAC and the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case by filing requisite details and directing them to appear and make submissions without seeking adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of selecting the wrong clause and non-compliance, without appreciating that the assessee might have had to choose an available online option. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) could not have set aside the assessment order without the AO invoking Section 144, the Tribunal has the power to restore the issue for de novo assessment. Considering the assessee's claim that details were not properly considered and the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection, emphasizing that for permanent registration under Section 12AB, the genuineness of activities must be verified, unlike provisional registration. Since the Assessee had admittedly not started activities, and merely purchasing property does not constitute charitable activity without actual use, the application was premature. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee still held valid provisional registration.
The Tribunal found that the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notices was insufficient and violated principles of natural justice, as per the SOP issued by the CBDT and a High Court ruling. The order of the CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10DA is directory and not mandatory. Following a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court pronouncements on similar deduction provisions, the Tribunal found that the delay in accepting the form was procedural and did not disentitle the assessee to the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting additional evidence (MOUs) without providing the Assessing Officer a reasonable opportunity to examine them or calling for a report. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for de-novo adjudication to ensure compliance with Rule 46A and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal, noting similar precedents, set aside the CIT(E)'s rejection order and remanded the case back to the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to either treat the original application as filed under the correct section code or allow the assessee to file a fresh application with the correct clause, condoning any delay, and then decide the matter afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been granted and that the assessee was indeed registered under Section 12AB. The order of the CIT was set aside and the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the addition was made on an issue not covered by the reasons recorded for reopening, and no fresh notice was issued. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance despite opportunities but, considering the circumstances (father's illness) and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits, with a condition that the assessee must appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to respond to the remand report. This violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the reassessment proceedings was invalid because it was obtained from the PCIT when the PCCIT's approval was mandatory, as more than three years had passed since the end of the assessment years. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential assessment orders were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as may be required or called upon. The CIT(E) was directed to decide both the applications under section 12A and 80G of the Act afresh based on the facts and law. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant and make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had not adjudicated the legal ground regarding the assessment being framed on a dead person. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication as per fact and law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not consider the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 477-day delay in filing the appeal, finding 'reasonable cause'. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal deleted an additional Rs.5.00 lakh from the Rs.10.00 lakh confirmed by the CIT(A), acknowledging other verifiable sources of cash available with the assessee. The legal issue of non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) was dismissed as the assessee had conceded proper service.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and substantiate its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form 2. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause was satisfactory. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant was in the process of filing an appeal against the rejection of an application under section 12A. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for further adjudication with an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order passed on a non-existing entity was not decided by the CIT(A)/NFAC and was not raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, this issue was left undecided. Regarding the deduction under Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, allowing the weighted deduction. The reasoning was that the assessee had made all required compliances to get approval, submitted all relevant documents to DSIR, and had received Form 3CM for other periods, indicating consistent activity. The non-issuance of Form 3CM for the period under consideration was considered a procedural lapse on the part of DSIR, and information obtained under the Right to Information Act suggested that DSIR had processed the form. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision to allow the deduction. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 4,24,156/- under Section 35(1)(iv) was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had correctly capitalized assets on the basis of put to use and claimed deduction as per law. The Revenue could not controvert these findings. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide a complete explanation regarding the nature and source of cash deposits and the reasons for withdrawals, the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act is upheld.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B is procedural and directory, not mandatory. Since the report was filed during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, the delay should have been condoned, and exemption under Section 11 should not have been denied.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Director of Valuation (DVO) for determining the fair market value of the land, as it is a technical matter. The AO cannot reject the registered valuer's report without such a reference.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the allowability of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from cooperative banks is no longer res integra, with consistent decisions supporting the assessee's claim. The PCIT erred in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to Section 35(1)(iv) deduction, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee correctly applied mercantile accounting principles. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the decision on Section 35(2AB) in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits, with liberty to the assessee to adduce evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed without deciding on merits due to procedural non-compliance, which was not intentional and caused by technical issues and short notice.
The Tribunal held that it is appropriate to restore the issue to the CIT(E) to give the assessee an opportunity to present necessary evidence regarding compliance with other laws and substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) as the R&D facility was approved by DSIR and the non-receipt of Form 3CM was a procedural lapse. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order that the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity was null and void.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) as the R&D facility was approved by DSIR and the non-receipt of Form 3CM was a procedural lapse. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order that the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity was null and void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1028 days, stating that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits, with liberty to the assessee to adduce evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. For Ground No. 1, concerning Section 80P(2)(a)(vi), the Tribunal dismissed the ground as academic, as the primary issue revolved around other deductions. For Ground No. 2, regarding Section 80P(2)(c)(ii), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already allowed the deduction of Rs.50,000/-, and this ground was also treated as academic. The core of the decision focused on Grounds 3 and 4, concerning deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks and societies, and interest on advances to member societies. The Tribunal respectfully followed its own coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 29/PUN/2025), which allowed similar deductions based on Section 80P(2)(d) and the Gujarat High Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society is eligible for deduction. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d). The operative direction was to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allow the appeal partly.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order passed on a non-existing entity was not decided by the CIT(A)/NFAC and was not raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, this issue was left undecided. Regarding the deduction under Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, allowing the weighted deduction. The reasoning was that the assessee had made all required compliances to get approval, submitted all relevant documents to DSIR, and had received Form 3CM for other periods, indicating consistent activity. The non-issuance of Form 3CM for the period under consideration was considered a procedural lapse on the part of DSIR, and information obtained under the Right to Information Act suggested that DSIR had processed the form. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision to allow the deduction. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 4,24,156/- under Section 35(1)(iv) was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had correctly capitalized assets on the basis of put to use and claimed deduction as per law. The Revenue could not controvert these findings. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that non-compliance was due to the Chartered Accountant's preoccupation and that details could be furnished if another opportunity was given. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order passed on a non-existing entity was not decided by the CIT(A)/NFAC and was not raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, this issue was left undecided. Regarding the deduction under Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, allowing the weighted deduction. The reasoning was that the assessee had made all required compliances to get approval, submitted all relevant documents to DSIR, and had received Form 3CM for other periods, indicating consistent activity. The non-issuance of Form 3CM for the period under consideration was considered a procedural lapse on the part of DSIR, and information obtained under the Right to Information Act suggested that DSIR had processed the form. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision to allow the deduction. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 4,24,156/- under Section 35(1)(iv) was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had correctly capitalized assets on the basis of put to use and claimed deduction as per law. The Revenue could not controvert these findings. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to Section 35(1)(iv) deduction, finding no infirmity as the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's financial and mental distress. The appeal was admitted for adjudication, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file additional evidence and decide the matter on merit.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but acknowledged the potential for arithmetical inaccuracies in the additions. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the primary reason for rejection by the CIT(E) was the non-availability of 12AB registration, which was itself a subject of a restored appeal before the CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue of 80G approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for one final opportunity to the assessee to submit required details and decide the matter.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had remitted the matter back to the AO without dealing with the legal and merits issues. Observing that both parties had no objection, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the jurisdictional AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal as the assessee did not wish to pursue it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) as the R&D facility was approved by DSIR and the non-receipt of Form 3CM was a procedural lapse. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order that the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity was null and void.