Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 4 of 5
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 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 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 noted that the CIT(A) had already directed the AO to examine the deduction claim. Considering the assessee's request and the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for necessary verification of the quantum of deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing one final opportunity to the assessee.
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.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the online appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred by not accounting for the indexed cost of acquisition. Upon proper consideration of the indexed cost of acquisition (Rs. 32,69,175/-) against the Stamp Duty Value (Rs. 32,55,000/-) of the property, it was determined that the transaction resulted in a loss, not an income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. For deductions under Chapter VI-A and section 24(b), the matter was restored to the AO for verification. The AO was directed to estimate net profit on gross turnover for certain expenses, providing relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the online appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal noted that while an appeal can be decided ex-parte for want of prosecution, the CIT(A) must adhere to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order in concurrence with the AO's order without examining the merits of the case, thus violating Section 250(6). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing one final opportunity to the assessee to be heard and submit documents. The assessee was directed to provide requisite support without seeking adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not giving full relief for cash in hand shown in the ITRs as on 31.03.2019. It also allowed 50% of the cash sales claimed for the period 01.04.2019 to 15.04.2019 to end litigation.
The Tribunal held that while the denial of exemption under Section 11 was based on procedural non-compliance, the income should be computed on commercial principles by allowing eligible expenses. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of expenses and correct computation of taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without delving into the merits due to non-submission of a required document. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, he must adhere to the legislative mandate under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an order concurring with the AO's findings without independently examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to his file for adjudication afresh. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to be heard and to provide requisite supporting documents, with a direction to make submissions without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on merits as per facts and law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices and failed to provide explanations before the CIT(A)/NFAC, leading to an ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restored all issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was bound to adjudicate all grounds, especially legal grounds, and that remanding the case without doing so was contrary to statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that the incorrect selection of a section code should not be fatal to the application. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter, directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the application as if filed under the correct section or allow the assessee to rectify/file a fresh application with condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to file a return in ITR-7 under Section 139(4A) but filed it under Section 139(4B), applicable to political parties. The registration under Section 12AA was granted later, and the activities for the relevant period were not examined. Considering these facts and a similar past case, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter.
The Tribunal held that while the denial of exemption under Section 11 was based on procedural non-compliance, the income should be computed on commercial principles by allowing eligible expenses. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of expenses and correct computation of taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, requiring approval from the Principal Chief CIT or equivalent as per Section 151(ii). The AO obtained approval from the Principal CIT as per Section 151(i), which is not valid in this case. Thus, the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the statement of the accommodation entry provider indicated he only started providing such bills from January 2018, which was after the purchases in question. Furthermore, the assessee's substantial excess application of income negated the need for bogus transactions. Consequently, the addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that due to the company initiating insolvency proceedings, an adjournment was sought but disregarded by the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) of the Act, which requires a return of income to be filed for claiming deductions, is not applicable when no return of income has been filed at all. Furthermore, Section 80AC of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment, did not preclude deduction under Section 80P if no return was filed. Therefore, the AO erred in invoking Section 80A(5) to deny the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the statement of the accommodation entry provider indicated he only started providing such bills from January 2018, which was after the purchases in question. Furthermore, the assessee's substantial excess application of income negated the need for bogus transactions. Consequently, the addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT's invocation of powers u/s 263 was justified. The issue regarding the accrued interest income was not under appeal before the CIT(A), and the Assessing Officer had erroneously provided relief by deducting it. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 was confirmed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the interest under Section 234B was incorrectly calculated by the CPC. The matter was restored to the CPC for re-computation of interest in light of CBDT guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section was a curable defect. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider all the details submitted by the assessee, particularly those filed on 23.03.2025, before passing the rejection order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the "reasons recorded for reopening" to the assessee, a procedural lapse violating the Supreme Court's directives in G.K.N. Driveshaft. Citing Bombay High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO to provide the reasons, allow the assessee to file objections, and then pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal found that the difference between the total interest received and the disclosed interest income was Rs. 18,569. The assessee's AR admitted that this amount was inadvertently not offered for taxation. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was partly confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section was a curable defect. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed registered prior to April 1, 2021, and the application under clause (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac) was inadvertently filed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee is engaged in education, not for profit, with gross receipts below Rs. 5 crores, making it exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) and not requiring registration u/s 12AB or 10(23C). The Tribunal also noted the possibility of providing the remaining information.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits and without considering the remand report. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision stating that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The grounds of appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive it if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue the Final Certificate under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as the issue of deduction on interest from cooperative banks was debatable and the AO had taken a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee concerning the capital contribution and remitted the issue back to the AO for re-adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Taking note of CBDT Circular No.11/2022, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding technical glitches that caused mislabeling of approvals.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to appear for hearings, partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and accepted the request to remand the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues after providing proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and received Form No. 2. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file a miscellaneous application for recalling the order if the DTVSV application is rejected or Form No. 4 is not received.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's prayer for another opportunity and in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that a proper opportunity of hearing be granted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not issued.
The Tribunal found that the land in question was mortgaged and could not be legally sold without clearance of the loan. Therefore, the transfer was considered void, and Section 43CA was not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In the larger interest of justice and to be fair to both parties, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law, as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is to be granted a proper opportunity of hearing, and is directed to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.