Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee's salary was not fully encashed, and the accumulated amount was earning interest. Since all transactions were recorded in the books and the source of investment was explained, the addition made by the AO under Section 69 of the Act was deleted. The CIT(A)'s finding was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of rent was sustained as it was not pressed by the assessee. However, the disallowance of remuneration to partners and salary to employees was deleted as the payments were made in cash within the prescribed limits and the genuineness of expenses was not doubted. The books of account were not rejected, and the gross receipts were not in dispute.
The Tribunal held that the assessee utilized the accumulated funds within the prescribed period, considering the Finance Act, 2022 amendment. The disallowance by CPC was deemed uncalled for, and based on precedent, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence obtained by the assessee through RTI, which had a bearing on the eligibility for deduction. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The direction was to verify the TDS claim as per Form 26AS and grant of refund, and pass a fresh order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence obtained by the assessee through RTI, which had a bearing on the eligibility for deduction. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO made an addition on account of bad debts, which was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, violating the principle laid down in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO validly served the notice u/s 143(2) by affixation after the notice sent by post was returned unserved. Regarding the disallowance u/s 80IB(10), the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fulfill the basic conditions, specifically by not submitting proof of completion of the project and other required documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to meet the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the project was not completed within the stipulated five-year period. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not address the issues raised by the assessee. Considering the assessee's failure to make proper compliance before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not willful or deliberate but due to unavoidable reasons. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for another opportunity and, without dwelling on merits, remitted the issues back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The direction was to verify the TDS claim as per Form 26AS and grant of refund, and pass a fresh order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee would not have gained by delaying. Without adjudicating the merits, the tribunal remitted the cases back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing and compliance, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to pass a speaking order. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication of the applications for registration under sections 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G(5), directing the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the larger interest of justice and the assessee's prayer, restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the admission of the amended/rectified application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication of the applications for registration under sections 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80G(5), directing the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice before the CIT's order, but it was not considered, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice before the CIT's order, but it was not considered, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to produce all brokers for examination and then decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, taking a justice-oriented approach. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply with notices and furnish details to the CIT(E), the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity for a hearing. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when dealing with delay. It directed the Ld. Addl CIT(A)/JCIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity for a hearing. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with notices and had a history of registration since 1998, with recent registration granted for AY 2021-22 to 2025-26. Considering the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and restored the issue to the CIT(E) to provide one final opportunity to submit details and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that a technical or typographical error in selecting the wrong clause should be corrected. The order of the CIT was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that a technical or typographical error in selecting the wrong clause should be corrected. The order of the CIT was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.