Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide complete details in response to the notices, particularly donation receipts, leading to the rejection by the CIT(E). However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in not granting a virtual hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Following a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity for a virtual hearing and remanded the case for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting a final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide one last opportunity.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The waiver of interest was on non-convertible debentures, not the optionally convertible debentures the PCIT assumed. Furthermore, the assessee had already filed the necessary form for disallowing education cess.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)[NFAC] erred in rejecting the Revenue's rectification application. The CIT(A)[NFAC] had incorrectly applied a proviso to Section 251(1) of the Act and failed to follow the ITAT's directions for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting a final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide one last opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed some response to the initial notice, but it was not satisfactory. A second notice was issued detailing discrepancies, to which the assessee failed to provide any reply. The CIT(E) rejected the Section 12A application and cancelled the provisional registration, and subsequently rejected the Section 80G application on similar grounds. Before the Tribunal, the assessee admitted to inadvertently missing the response to the second notice and requested one more opportunity. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The issue was restored to the CIT(E)'s file with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The assessee was directed to be vigilant in accessing notices and making submissions without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of eligibility for 12A registration or 80G approval.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)/NFAC may decide an appeal ex parte for non-prosecution, it must adhere to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order without going into the merits of the case, thus violating Section 250(6). 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. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to decide the issues afresh on merits after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear and make submissions without seeking any adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the error in selecting the clause was a bona fide clerical mistake and not a grave error. Relying on previous coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found that such technical mistakes should be corrected. The CIT(E)'s rejection was set aside.
The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's spouse's case. It held that the impugned lands were agricultural lands and no capital gain was payable for the transaction, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is required to explain and substantiate its case to the satisfaction of the CIT(E) by filing the requisite details as may be called upon. The CIT(E) is directed to decide both applications, under Section 12A and Section 80G, afresh based on facts and law. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant in accessing notices and to 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 did not decide the substantive issues of eligibility for registration or approval but remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake of selecting the wrong sub-clause is not a grave error and the CIT(E) should consider the application on its merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum addition made by the AO, on which the penalty was levied. Therefore, the penalty was held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution towards ESI/PF, if not deposited within the due dates prescribed by the respective welfare laws, is not allowable as a deduction. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to file details was due to a medical emergency in the family. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already directed the Assessing Officer to delete the said addition. As the relief sought by the assessee had already been granted, the Tribunal found that no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and therefore, the appeal before the ITAT was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in not granting a virtual hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Following a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity for a virtual hearing and remanded the case for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to file details was due to a medical emergency in the family. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, 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. The assessee is to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as may be required. The CIT(E) is to decide both applications under Section 12A and Section 80G afresh based on facts and law. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) was not in accordance with the law. The assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society and is eligible for the claimed deductions under Section 80P.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments but noted that both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC had not appreciated the facts correctly. The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) acknowledged that stocks worth Rs. 13,43,083/- were acquired in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), he still confirmed the addition for AY 2017-18, stating they were not offered for tax in AY 2018-19. However, the facts indicated that the cost of acquisition of these impugned stocks was included in Form 16 as a perquisite for AY 2018-19, amounting to Rs. 10,82,612/-. Regarding the difference of Rs. 8,10,190/-, the assessee argued it arose from valuing stocks at the filing date instead of the acquisition date, and that Rs. 8,91,570/- was already offered as perquisite. The Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter to the AO for re-examination of the issues, granting appropriate relief after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to provide full support with requisite details and evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be allowed to be set off against prior period income brought to tax in the current year, subject to verification. Other grounds concerning disallowance of sales tax payments and cash payments were dismissed.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, 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 to the satisfaction of the CIT(E) by filing the requisite details. The CIT(E) was directed to decide both applications under Section 12A and Section 80G afresh on merits. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(E) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance was due to an employee's mistake and that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present its case. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)/NFAC may decide an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, they must adhere to Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order without going into the merits of the case, thus violating Section 250(6). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to his file for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to provide a correct and active email ID and appear on the appointed date without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide complete details in response to the notices, particularly donation receipts, leading to the rejection by the CIT(E). However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake of selecting the wrong sub-clause is not a grave error and the CIT(E) should consider the application on its merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the trustees were doctors engaged in emergency services. The Tribunal also held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11, relying on its own previous orders and other High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)/NFAC has the power to decide an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, they must adhere to Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order without going into the merits of the case, thus violating Section 250(6). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to his file. The assessee was directed to provide a correct and active email ID, remain vigilant, and appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC to make submissions without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that grave injustice would be caused if the delay was not condoned. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Since the audit report was filed during the appellate proceedings and the assessee has a valid registration under section 12A, the benefit of sections 11 and 12 should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CPC is empowered to make adjustments for incorrect claims apparent from the return, including those due to belated filing, as per Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and Section 80AC. The claim for deduction under Section 80P is not admissible if the return is filed beyond the due date.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the income was offered only after detection during the survey and the revised return was filed after the due date for the original return, thus attracting penalty provisions for under-reporting due to misreporting.
The Tribunal held that earning rental income by letting out a part of the premises, which is utilized for the objects of the trust, does not attract the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee should not be denied registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal concerning the same issue (ITA No.1725/PUN/2025) had already been decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society had been in existence and providing educational facilities since 1971, thus its activities had commenced. The rejection by the CIT for the discrepancy was therefore not justified. The matter was remanded back to the CIT.
The Tribunal found that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from effectively prosecuting the appeal and deserved another opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to provide due opportunity to the assessee to file necessary documents and prove its case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not make any submissions before the CIT(A) despite several opportunities. The assessee's counsel explained this non-compliance as not being deliberate, attributing it to the husband's tour and the assessee's late knowledge of the ex-parte order. The CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits due to the lack of submissions. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide a correct/active email ID, remain vigilant in receiving notices, and file replies without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order if the assessee failed to comply. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based solely on D.N. Kotgire's affidavit was incorrect. The source of cash payments made by the assessee to D.N. Kotgire remained unexplained, and offering tax on the profit element by D.N. Kotgire did not absolve the assessee of explaining the source of their cash payments.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring from June 1, 2015, onwards, any fees levied for delays prior to this date should be deleted. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring from June 1, 2015, onwards, any fees levied for delays prior to this date should be deleted. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring from June 1, 2015, onwards, any fees levied for delays prior to this date should be deleted. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring from June 1, 2015, onwards, any fees levied for delays prior to this date should be deleted. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.