Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 2 of 4
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations to reconcile the differences in receipts and TDS, attributing them to transactions with a joint venture company.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the grounds concerning the validity of the notice and the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in 'Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT', the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for registration under Section 12A read with Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee runs duly approved educational institutions, and its objects and activities are charitable in nature as per Section 2(15) of the Act. The rejection by the CIT(E) was solely based on the non-obtaining of prior permission from the Charity Commissioner for advances from trustees. The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's observation in Ashok Shreekrishna Beharay vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and the ITAT Nagpur's decision in Shri Vyankanath Maharaj, opined that the advances given by the trustees were unsecured and utilized for the trust's objects without creating encumbrances. Therefore, the non-obtaining of prior permission was considered a procedural lapse and not a material violation of law as envisaged in Section 12AB(1)(b)(B) of the Act. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and he was directed to grant registration. Regarding the Section 80G registration, since the assessee was now eligible for 12A registration, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 80G as well.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for reversal of income due to non-recovery was supported by its books of account, which reflected the raised invoices and subsequent reversal as per accounting principles. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, and the reversal was a valid business decision due to non-recovery. Respectfully following the decisions in T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT and Oman International Bank (supra), the Tribunal found that treating a debt as bad and writing it off in the books based on commercial wisdom is sufficient for claiming deduction or for not offering such income for taxation, provided the decision is bonafide. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) had not brought any contrary material or juridical precedent to enable a different view. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.1,13,53,979/-. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause and that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to explain and substantiate its case before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued on incorrect reasons and without complying with the requirements of Section 151. The Tribunal agreed that the AO could not assess other income if the initial reason for belief of escaped income was not substantiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished replies and was maintaining audited books of accounts. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the issue back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing justice-oriented approach and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause and that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to explain and substantiate its case before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but considered it unintentional. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present all requisite details and substantiate its case, with a warning to ensure compliance with future notices.
The Tribunal held that taking advances from trustees, which were utilized for the trust's objects without encumbering trust property, is a procedural lapse and not a material violation of other laws. The assessee's activities were found to be charitable.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments with Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ITAT noted that this issue is no longer res integra, with consistent rulings supporting the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the CIT(A) had not dealt with the legal ground regarding the validity of reassessment, dismissing the appeal on merits. Relying on a High Court ruling, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing justice-oriented approach and judicial precedents. It also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal regarding the Section 80C deduction, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct verification. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was taken from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required by Section 151 of the Act for reassessment proceedings initiated more than three years after the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the crucial issue was whether the land was held as stock-in-trade or a capital asset. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the relevant financial year for valuation.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh.
The Tribunal noted that hearing notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, leading to the assessee's absence and an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC order and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but considered it unintentional. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present all requisite details and substantiate its case, with a warning to ensure compliance with future notices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the 80G application was not justified as it failed to consider the effect of a prior ITAT order which had set aside the rejection of the 12AB application. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate its activities and clarify the issue of unsecured loans. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to present all requisite details and evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the addition of unsecured loans, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all necessary documents and produce the lender if required. The ground regarding labour expenses was dismissed due to lack of evidence and distinguishable case laws.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details. The assessee is directed to submit the details without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate its activities and clarify the issue of unsecured loans. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to present all requisite details and evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting similar reasons were accepted for the assessee's son. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, including the possibility of a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obliged to decide the appeal on merits, even if a withdrawal application was filed, as the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme was rejected. The CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had deliberately concealed taxable income by claiming excess deductions, and since no truthful explanation was provided for the omission to offer correct income, the penalty under Section 270A was justified.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment in the absence of fresh tangible material, when the original assessment had already considered the transactions, was not in accordance with law. The CIT(A) had allowed relief to the assessee, finding no adverse material against them.
The Tribunal held that the assessee participated in assessment proceedings without challenging the jurisdiction or notice validity, thus waiving the right to question it later. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) upheld the GP addition in absence of satisfactory explanation.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment for the same transactions, which were already considered during scrutiny assessment and where the exemption claim was allowed, is not in accordance with law in the absence of fresh tangible material. The CIT(A)'s order allowing relief to the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration, directing one final opportunity for the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 allowed assessees whose applications were rejected due to delay to file fresh applications. The Tribunal found that the assessee's fresh application was filed within the extended period allowed by the circular.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on the ground of violation of natural justice without considering the merits. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence and judicial pronouncements supporting the AO's findings regarding bogus LTCG from penny stocks.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting similar reasons were accepted for the assessee's son. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, including the possibility of a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on the ground of violation of natural justice without considering the merits. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence and judicial pronouncements supporting the AO's findings regarding bogus LTCG from penny stocks.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on the ground of violation of natural justice without considering the merits. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence and judicial pronouncements supporting the AO's findings regarding bogus LTCG from penny stocks.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide adequate time to the assessee to respond to the notices, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had deliberately concealed taxable income by claiming excess deductions, and since no truthful explanation was provided for the omission to offer correct income, the penalty under Section 270A was justified.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when there is a non-deliberate delay. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared agricultural income and expenditure, which the AO did not consider, treating the receipts as unexplained income. Due to the assessee's stated medical reasons for non-compliance and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that statements u/s 131 recorded after reassessment proceedings but before the impugned order indicated conflicting amounts received. The CIT(A) had not considered these as additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration, directing one final opportunity for the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 allowed assessees whose applications were rejected due to delay to file fresh applications. The Tribunal found that the assessee's fresh application was filed within the extended period allowed by the circular.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide adequate time to the assessee to respond to the notices, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause and admitted the appeal for adjudication. Considering the assessee's claim of being uneducated and not technologically savvy, and to provide a fair opportunity, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for denovo adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the impact of Covid-19 restrictions. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) was set aside, recognizing that the assessee demonstrated a reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices issued during the pandemic.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's contention that notice was not properly served and the period of delay was not intentional. However, since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive issues, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.