Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order, following a High Court precedent. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
Given that the basis for initiating penalties (the quantum assessment) was already set aside for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to also remit the penalty issues to the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, deeming it crucial for deciding the additions. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for a de-novo assessment after considering the new evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a Cooperative Society from investments in other Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, as such banks are essentially Cooperative Societies.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing it to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in the proceedings (15 years) and, in the interest of justice, granted a further relief of Rs.5.00 lakh, acknowledging accumulated funds and unsecured loans. This reduced the sustained addition to Rs.88,754/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry and taken a permissible view. The PCIT's order was not justified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined both issues raised by the PCIT. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks was allowable, and the provisioning of expenses, after being added back, was also eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 631 days in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) order and the assessee's submission for another opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It noted that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and while the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is attributable to the society's business. The Tribunal also allowed deductions for electricity bill collection commission and interest on income tax refund.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documents, including its trust deed, registration certificate, financials, and government approval for running a school. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's objects were charitable and its activities were genuine, leading to the grant of registration.
The Tribunal held that procedural lapses by the buyer should not cause the assessee to suffer. It referred to CBDT Instruction No.5/13 and judicial precedents, stating that if TDS was deducted and deposited, credit should be given to the assessee after verification.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is attributable to the society's business. The Tribunal also allowed deductions for electricity bill collection commission and interest on income tax refund.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT as he rejected the application without giving the assessee a final opportunity to address the identified defects. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte after issuing only two notices within a short 16-day period, which was deemed an insufficient opportunity for the assessee. Without addressing the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed a Best Judgment Assessment due to non-compliance that arose from a communication issue, where the notice was sent to the previous tax counsel. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, restoring the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant the appellant one final opportunity to submit all required details. The appellant is also directed to be diligent in making submissions on the appointed date without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear despite valid notices, indicating a lack of interest. However, to provide a fair opportunity, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that some issues were not properly examined by the AO, warranting restoration to the AO for fresh examination. However, for other issues, the AO's findings were upheld, reversing the PCIT's view.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A read with Section 12AB. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed all necessary documents, including the trust deed, Charity Commissioner registration, financials, and government approval for running a school. The Tribunal was convinced that the assessee's objects were charitable in nature as defined in Section 2(15), its activities of running an approved school were in line with its objects, and the genuineness of these activities was established by the submitted documents. The CIT(E) had not presented any evidence of violation of applicable laws. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12A read with Section 12AB. For the appeal concerning Section 80G(5), the Tribunal noted that the rejection was based solely on the rejection of the Section 12A application. Since the Section 12A registration was being granted, and no other reason for rejection was provided by the CIT(E), the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 80G(5) as well. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation Vs. ITO(Exemptions).
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society on deposits with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Supreme Court precedents that supported this view.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The CIT(A) has a mandatory duty to decide the appeal on merits.
Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that a CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on merits, with the CIT(A) directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s. 80C, exemption of Rs. 63,566/- u/s. 10, deduction of interest of Rs. 60,353/- u/s. 24, and deduction u/s. 80TTA of Rs. 3,190/-. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1810/PUN/2025), the Tribunal followed a binding precedent and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that an order cannot be passed in the name of a deceased person. Therefore, the CIT(A) order was set aside for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heirs on record and provide them an opportunity to be heard. The appeal in ITA No. 1419/PUN/2025 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was sufficient cause for the delay considering the exclusion of the Covid-19 period. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that an order cannot be passed in the name of a deceased person. Therefore, the CIT(A) order was set aside for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heirs on record and provide them an opportunity to be heard. The appeal in ITA No. 1419/PUN/2025 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an inappropriate authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner) as it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s. 80C, exemption of Rs. 63,566/- u/s. 10, deduction of interest of Rs. 60,353/- u/s. 24, and deduction u/s. 80TTA of Rs. 3,190/-. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1810/PUN/2025), the Tribunal followed a binding precedent and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 583 days, citing sufficient cause shown by the assessee and referring to Supreme Court judgments. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT was based on a technical ground of selecting the wrong clause, and that on merits, no adverse findings were made against the assessee. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found the error to be a curable defect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had valid approval for claiming exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) and had received this benefit in previous assessment years. The Tribunal found that the assessee incorrectly claimed exemption under Section 10(23AAA) instead of Section 10(25)(iv).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found sufficient cash in hand to explain the deposit of Rs.2,35,000/-. The Tribunal also held that the receipt of Rs.16,96,240/- from debtors was genuine and related to business sales, and the addition for agricultural income was also deleted based on supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely on a technical error regarding the wrong section code, with no adverse findings on merits. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT to treat the application as filed under the correct desired clause and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely on a technical error regarding the wrong section code, with no adverse findings on merits. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT to treat the application as filed under the correct desired clause and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to a Bombay High Court judgment, reiterating that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the rectification under Section 154 was not permissible as the original invocation of Section 269ST was a possible legal view, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification order and the subsequent penalty proceedings were quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to a Bombay High Court judgment, reiterating that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) is applicable only when a return of income is filed and a deduction is claimed therein. It does not apply when no return is filed. The Tribunal also noted that Section 80AC, concerning the furnishing of a return for claiming deductions, does not include Section 80P. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely for non-filing of the return was not justified.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee, and that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The case was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 288 days, considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee and citing judgments of the Apex Court. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, affording the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the 'reasonable cause' due to technical difficulties with PAN changes and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The penalty levied for non-appearance during the pandemic period was deleted, granting immunity under Section 273B.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 76 days, considering the circumstances and the judgments cited. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remit the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is to consider the details provided by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity for explanation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 147, as the information was gathered during a search. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were deemed illegal and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation invoking section 249(4)(b) was not in accordance with law, as the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax in the preceding year. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues to the AO for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated a 'reasonable cause' for non-appearance due to practical difficulties and lack of familiarity with tax procedures, thus qualifying for immunity under Section 273B. The impugned penalty of Rs.10,000 levied under Section 271(1)(b) was accordingly deleted.
The Tribunal observed a lack of evidence regarding the assessee's business operations, books of account, and details of cash deposits. It also found the 12% profit estimation by the CIT(A) to be unrealistic. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the assessee to provide necessary details and cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the employers' contribution to PF, which was deposited before the due date of filing the return u/s.139(1), should be allowed. However, the disallowance for employees' contribution to PF and ESI, deposited after the due date, was confirmed.