Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a technical mistake in filing the application under the wrong section code. Citing a previous similar case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT's order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after the assessee files a correct application.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant sufficient time (less than one week) for the appellant to respond to notices, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that excess cash found at the business premises, if admitted and related to business transactions, should be treated as business income and taxed at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision on a similar issue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents without seeking adjournments.
The assessee filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on technical grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal, accepting that the deposits pertained to the assessee's grain business. However, instead of adding the entire amount u/s 68, the CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate net profit at 8% on the cash deposits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 263 days, finding a reasonable cause. It remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence and directing the CIT(A) to call for a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not responding to the notices due to the Covid-19 pandemic and movement restrictions. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's critical medical condition and the need for a justice-oriented approach, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others and Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had merely affirmed the Assessing Officer's findings without dealing with the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order, granting proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with the ratio laid down in CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(E) for necessary adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the required details and present their case.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia payment was a voluntary payment made out of appreciation and not covered by Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following a previous decision with similar facts, the Tribunal ruled that the payment was a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following a series of its own decisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was given an opportunity to explain, but the CIT rejected the application. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT to decide afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission that non-compliance was due to reasons beyond their control and allowed a further opportunity to furnish details. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) was not in accordance with law, as the case was reopened on the basis of bogus interest expenses, but the addition was made on a different ground. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
The Tribunal found an apparent mistake by the CIT(A) in not fully allowing the indexed cost of acquisition benefit and the Section 54 deduction, despite acknowledging the assessee's claim. It held that the resultant capital gain from the transaction is Nil, concluding that no addition should be sustained in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to reasonable cause. For AY 2017-18, it quashed the revisionary order under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order. For AY 2018-19, it remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) was not in accordance with law, as the case was reopened on the basis of bogus interest expenses, but the addition was made on a different ground. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to reasonable cause. For AY 2017-18, it quashed the revisionary order under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order. For AY 2018-19, it remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal restored both issues (excess sugarcane payment and concessional sale of sugar) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For agricultural income, the issue was also remitted to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding it was passed against a non-existing entity. It also found that sundry creditors outstanding for many years could not be treated as cessation of trading liability under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on a non-existing entity and was therefore null and void. On merits, the Tribunal found that the addition for sundry creditors was not justified as the liabilities had not ceased to exist.
The Tribunal restored the issue of excess cane price paid to members to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the provisions of Section 155(19) of the Act and the pending application of the assessee. For the issue of sale of sugar at a concessional rate, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the AO with directions to consider the documents filed by the assessee, the State Government GR dated 01.03.2006, and the assessee's plea to calculate the difference between the levy price and concessional price instead of the market price and concessional price. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also restored the issue of disallowance of agricultural income for AY 2012-13 to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on a non-existing entity and was therefore null and void. On merits, the Tribunal found that the addition for sundry creditors was not justified as the liabilities had not ceased to exist.
The Tribunal decided to restore both the issue of excess cane price paid to members and the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. For excess cane price, this was in light of the provisions of Section 155(19) of the Act and the pending application before the AO. For the concessional sale of sugar, the AO was directed to consider the documents filed by the assessee, the GR issued by the State Government dated 01.03.2006, and to consider the assessee's plea to calculate the difference between levy price and concessional price instead of market price and concessional price. The AO was to decide these issues afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard. The grounds relating to these issues were allowed for statistical purposes. Additionally, the ground concerning the disallowance of agricultural income for AY 2012-13 was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal held that the findings in the lead case (ITA No. 2510/PUN/2024) would apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals.
The Tribunal held that both the issue of excess cane price paid to members and the issue of sale of sugar at a concessional rate should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. For the excess cane price, the Tribunal noted the insertion of Section 155(19) of the Act and the pending application before the AO, deeming it proper to restore the issue for fresh adjudication. Regarding the sale of sugar at a concessional rate, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the documents filed by the assessee, the GR issued by the State Government dated 01.03.2006, and the assessee's plea to calculate the difference between the levy price and the concessional price instead of the market price and concessional price. The AO was instructed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee on these issues were allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, the issue of disallowance of agricultural income for AY 2012-13 was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found that the facts and grounds in the other appeals were identical to the lead case, and therefore, the findings would apply mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of sale deeds and the assessee's submission regarding the JV agreement, restored the issue of capital gains to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the issue of rental income classification (house property vs. business income) was also restored to the AO for re-evaluation, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present further evidence.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and submit details. However, considering the prayer and the absence of specific adjudication on the issues, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the addition challenged was below Rs. 60 lakhs, which is the revised monetary limit for appeals by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the 'reasonable cause' stated by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the appellant's application dated 24.11.2022, giving the appellant an opportunity to file requisite details and decide on merits. The second appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee another opportunity by remitting all issues back to the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The learned CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. The assessee was instructed to update contact details and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum addition, while the assessee failed on legal grounds due to non-compliance, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty appeal was also restored to CIT(A) as it depended on the quantum addition.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No.67 is directory and not mandatory, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions. Therefore, the belated filing of Form No.67 should not be a ground for disallowing FTC, especially when it was available before the processing of the return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in remanding the matter to the AO without adjudicating on merits, especially since the assessee had provided details and it was not an ex-parte assessment. The case was restored to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals, stating they were duplicate filings of electronically filed appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals, stating they were duplicate filings of electronically filed appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's updated return was allegedly filed without their knowledge due to errors by the tax preparer. In the interest of natural justice and to ensure tax is levied only on actual income earned, the issue was remanded back to the JAO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. It remitted the two unaddressed grounds concerning commission income and short-term capital gain back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars extended the filing deadline, making the appellant's application within the extended limit. Therefore, the CIT(E) should have adjudicated the application on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 397 days finding the delay was due to a reasonable cause. The assessment order and the first appellate order were passed ex-parte and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely based on the wrong section code selection was not appropriate as it was an inadvertent mistake. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the appellant an opportunity to rectify the application and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not have the power under Section 251 of the Act to restore an assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The CIT(A) was bound to deal with the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had raised queries, received replies, and completed the assessment. The assessee had also provided details during the revisionary proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days in filing the appeals, holding that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and adduce supporting documents.