Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 (effective 01.04.2021), the CPC did not have the power under Section 143(1)(a) to disallow deductions under Section 80P by invoking Section 80AC for delayed returns. As the intimation order was dated 10.03.2021 (before the amendment's effective date), the adjustment by CPC was deemed unjustified and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim under Section 80P.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, relying on its consistent decisions in the assessee's own cases for previous assessment years, held that interest income earned from investments made with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claimed deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained absent and did not comply with notices. Citing previous judgments, including one involving the same assessee for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal issue raised in the additional ground regarding jurisdiction and also to decide the merits of the case afresh, including the issue of cross-examination, after necessary inquiry and a remand report if required.
The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a deceased person is invalid. As the PCIT's order was passed against a dead person without bringing the legal heir on record, it was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had restored the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the Tribunal also restored the penalty issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings are completed, with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Maxim SMT Technologies Private Limited, being primarily a manufacturing entity with no significant trading turnover, was not comparable to the assessee, who is in the trading business. The Tribunal also directed the rework of the average by considering the correct margin for Debak Enterprises Private Limited.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where ITAT Pune had decided in favor of the assessee. Following the principle of judicial discipline and precedence, the Tribunal found that income from IT Support services, even if viewed independently, is not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee claimed the notices from the CIT(A)/NFAC were not received, leading to an ex-parte order, and requested an opportunity to present supporting evidence, the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that the ld. CIT(A) erred by not accepting the medical certificate without specific disproving evidence. It directed the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them for adjudication. While acknowledging the admitted fact that the assessee did not respond to the second notice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal decided to restore the penalty issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing adjudication afresh after the completion of quantum proceedings. The CIT(A)/NFAC was also directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not primarily for profit and were in consonance with its charitable objectives of assisting ex-servicemen. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration based on charging fees or a mark-up.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the remand report from the AO, as the AO had failed to provide the remand report previously. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that reclassification of income based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars, especially when disclosed in books and offered to tax, does not constitute under-reporting or misreporting. The assessee's conduct was considered bona fide.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them for adjudication. While acknowledging the admitted fact that the assessee did not respond to the second notice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal, while noting the absence of the assessee and their failure to provide evidence, upheld the findings of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's action of considering the stamp duty valuation as the deemed sale consideration, especially since the DVO's report was received later and indicated a higher fair market value.
The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer res integra, as similar facts in prior years were decided in favor of the assessee. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the assessee's eligibility for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer res integra, as similar facts in prior years were decided in favor of the assessee. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the assessee's eligibility for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) if the report was furnished before the final order of assessment, following precedents from the Supreme Court and coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was unjustified as the assessee did not receive subsequent hearing notices. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The Rs. 84,00,000/- was part of a larger disclosed income from scrap sales, and allowing telescoping benefit prevents double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was still pending adjudication. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh decision after the disposal of the quantum addition appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize substantial justice over technicalities. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish requisite details and substantiate the utilization of the loan for business premises construction, allowing for a fresh decision on the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's sufficient cause. It also restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the wrong selection of a section code in the application was not fatal and that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal held that the rent income was less than 20% of gross receipts, thus not falling under the business income definition, and set aside the PCIT's finding on this issue. However, it upheld the PCIT's direction to re-examine the taxability of interest income as it was not properly examined by the AO.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to a mistake in attaching the wrong documents, leading to the appeal being infructuous. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the wrong selection of a section code in the application was not fatal and that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as the reasons recorded by the AO were without application of mind and not based on tangible material. The notice was issued on borrowed satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to respond to all the observations made in the revisionary order. Therefore, the revisionary order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated based on a show-cause notice that did not specify the applicable limb or charge, making the initiation void. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the 111-day delay, noting it was due to the assessee's lack of awareness and non-response from their tax consultant. In the interest of justice, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6), with directions to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to remain vigilant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay. It held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from co-operative banks is well-settled. However, since the lower authorities did not decide on merits, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide details on multiple hearing dates before the CIT(A), despite the delay in filing the appeal being condoned. However, considering the facts and larger interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay. It held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from co-operative banks is well-settled. However, since the lower authorities did not decide on merits, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal remitted all issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide details on multiple hearing dates before the CIT(A), despite the delay in filing the appeal being condoned. However, considering the facts and larger interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.