Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on a technicality, as the assessee's appeal was intended against the assessment order under section 147, not the preliminary order under section 148A(d). Recognizing the mistake in the appeal form, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order for one of the assessment years as the addition was made on an issue not forming the basis of the reopening.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to respond to notices and produce all necessary documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations, set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the 136-day delay and restore the matter for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, attributed to the Chartered Accountant's preoccupation with tax audit reports, appeared genuine. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. F.No.173/193/2019-ITA-I dated 23rd April 2019, filing the return within the time allowed under section 139 (including 139(4)) is sufficient for claiming exemption under section 11. The Tribunal further noted that the delay in filing the audit report was condoned under section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be in violation of section 250(6) of the Act as it confirmed the AO's addition without going into the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the assessee's written submission was not considered by the CIT(A). Without deciding on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Without delving into the merits, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and requiring the assessee to respond to notices and submit evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was instructed to cooperate without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to specifically verify the claim in light of the provisions of Section 80JJAA and the previous year's allowance by CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for specific verification of the deduction claim as per Section 80JJAA provisions and the CIT(A)'s finding for AY 2022-23, to allow the claim if found correct.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, with instructions for the assessee to cooperate and be vigilant with notices.
The Tribunal held that the sustainability of the penalties is dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Therefore, both penalty issues under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B were restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 552-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee as sufficient cause. Considering that the assessee's 12A registration matter had already been remitted for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the 80G application and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit, contrary to the Bombay High Court's ruling that a CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. Furthermore, the assessee had specifically chosen not to receive notices via email. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for *de novo* adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order for one of the assessment years as the addition was made on an issue not forming the basis of the reopening.
The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. Recognizing the assessee as a small primary credit co-operative society, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-compliance, given his background and reliance on the consultant. Invoking Section 273B, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, thus allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without considering the assessee's statement of facts. Considering the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with the belief that income had escaped assessment. Notice under Section 148 was issued, but the assessee failed to file the return, and subsequent notices under Section 142(1) also remained uncomplied with.
The tribunal held that the addition was based solely on an uncorroborated third-party statement and a diary entry, without allowing cross-examination or considering that the alleged signatures did not match the assessee's. Finding no evidence to prove the cash transaction, the tribunal concluded the addition was based on surmises and conjectures and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the sustainability of the penalties is dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Therefore, both penalty issues under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B were restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant evidence regarding the property's title problems and lower valuation. The assessee was also instructed to provide details of any addition made in the hands of the co-owner. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a fair hearing, with the possibility of seeking a remand report from the JAO if new evidence is filed.
The Tribunal ruled that while an ex-parte assessment under section 144 is the correct remedy for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices, repeated penalties under section 272A(1)(d) for the same default of non-compliance with a second notice are not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the first default, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the full Rs. 20,000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing rectification and the department's inaction. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, considering the reasons provided (mistake by office staff and CA's affidavit), and to decide the appeal on merits as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by responding to notices and producing all relevant documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10CCB under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the claims made in Form 10CCB after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, which violates Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to provide necessary support and remain vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory, and a delay in its submission should not be the sole ground for denying the FTC. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form No. 67 and directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to allow the FTC claim after due verification. Consequently, the impugned order denying the FTC was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing rectification and the department's inaction. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that one of the assessee's applications was initially filed within the prescribed time but was rejected due to a technical error (wrong clause selection). Emphasizing that technicalities should not impede genuine cases, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the original application and the trusts' activities, after providing a fresh opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the interest provision was an ascertained liability under the mercantile system of accounting and could not be disallowed under Section 37. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court judgment where similar provisions were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80G allow applications to be filed at any time after the commencement of activities. Therefore, the assessee's application was considered valid and maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the AO had taken a possible view on the allowability of deductions for standard assets. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely on a difference of opinion when the AO's view is legally permissible.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition under Section 68, holding it to be a duplicate addition as the cash deposits were part of the anonymous donations already taxed. The Tribunal, however, found the matter needed re-verification.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition under Section 68, considering it a duplicate addition to the anonymous donations. However, the Tribunal found the matter needed re-verification and remanded both issues back to the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Tribunal found that the interest income was legitimate, arising from delayed payments by debtors in the assessee's agency business model where the assessee guarantees payments. The ITAT concluded that the AO had incorrectly disregarded the agency nature of the transactions, and the sales and debtors were reflected in the principal's books.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to verify the assessee's claims of double taxation, despite the assessee providing details in Form No. 35. Consequently, both the assessment order and the penalty order were set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to submit necessary details.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for admitting additional evidences, considering the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee due opportunity to produce additional evidences and supporting documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that disallowance under section 14A cannot be sustained if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Relying on binding precedents from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other ITAT benches, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, concluding that no disallowance was called for.
The Tribunal found that one of the assessee's applications was initially filed within the prescribed time but was rejected due to a technical error (wrong clause selection). Emphasizing that technicalities should not impede genuine cases, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the original application and the trusts' activities, after providing a fresh opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to him. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions (including *Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal* and *Deepak Steel & Power Ltd.*), held that the notice under section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 was time-barred and bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that disallowance under section 14A cannot be sustained if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Relying on binding precedents from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other ITAT benches, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, concluding that no disallowance was called for.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents without seeking adjournments.
Following precedents set by the Karnataka High Court and Sikkim High Court, the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 33,18,277/-.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to verify the assessee's claims of double taxation, despite the assessee providing details in Form No. 35. Consequently, both the assessment order and the penalty order were set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to submit necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved the genuineness of share transactions through a registered broker, PSE Securities, not Vibrant Securities as alleged by the AO. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to disprove the CIT(A)'s findings or the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal did not quash the intimation from the CPC. Instead, it restored the issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for re-examination. The assessee was directed to submit an affidavit and provide financial statements, bank statements, and income details to substantiate their claim of incorrect income declaration and that the income should be taxed in another year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of accounts were accepted, implying its business activities were genuine. Considering the panic during demonetization and lack of contrary material, the Tribunal held that cash deposits likely originated from business sales. However, due to insufficient details provided, the addition was sustained by estimating income at 8% of the cash sales.