Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without going into merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had, in fact, submitted all necessary documents. Following precedents from the Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court and Kerala High Court, it held that interest income earned by a Co-operative Credit Society from deposits in co-operative banks and other banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely due to the delay in filing and the lack of a condonation application. Considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present details for both the cash deposit source and the delay, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant one opportunity to the assessee to file the requisite documents and decide the issue as per law.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. With the consent of both parties, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and present all relevant facts and documents without seeking adjournments. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee, a charitable trust earning income under 'income from other sources', is not subject to section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2011-12. It noted that an amendment by the Finance Act, 2017 made this section applicable to 'income from other sources' only from April 1, 2018, onwards. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities for the impugned assessment year was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay, acknowledging valid medical reasons. It found a prima facie case that the assessee's husband provided the funds for the joint property purchase. The case was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for thorough verification of the payment details and sources, with directions to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present her case, and if verified, no addition under Section 69 should be made.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient material to make the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs. The addition was based on a third-party statement without providing a copy or cross-examination to the assessee, and the onus was on the AO to prove the cash payment.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessees' plea for a fair opportunity. In the interest of justice, it set aside the impugned orders and restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) after granting the assessees proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that since the foundational order u/s 263 was quashed by the ITAT, all subsequent proceedings dependent on it, including the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, automatically became infructuous. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal against the quashing of the 263 order before the High Court does not change the infructuous nature of the current proceedings.
The ITAT, noting the CIT(A)'s dismissal *in limine* and the consistent legal view supporting section 80P(2)(d) deduction for interest from co-operative banks, restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to afford proper hearing, consider judicial precedents, and pass a speaking order on merits.
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the delay was not intentional. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the issues raised. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to discharge the shifted burden of proving the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) of Rs. 11,55,891/- under Section 41(1) was unsustainable as the AO failed to prove the creditors had written off the liabilities. The issue of Rs. 1,06,940/- regarding differential receipts was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely disagreeing with the AO's view does not warrant revision under Section 263, especially when the AO had examined the details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to discharge the shifted burden of proving the contrary.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to discharge the shifted burden of proving the contrary.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessees' plea for a fair opportunity. In the interest of justice, it set aside the impugned orders and restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) after granting the assessees proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to discharge the shifted burden of proving the contrary.
The Tribunal condoned the 146-day delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order, which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and confirmed the AO's findings without adjudicating on merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee providing all requisite documents and cooperating with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully explained the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the Covid-19 pandemic period and receiving the demand/recovery notice only in October 2023. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, without deciding the legal grounds and merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate all issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged its prior order, which held the assessee eligible for registration under section 12A(1)(ac) and for carrying out charitable activities. Given this, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, considering the assessee's established registration status. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to provide reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions based on seized material that did not directly implicate the assessee and in extrapolating figures without corroborative evidence. The additions were based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was filed within the time allowed under the Act, interpreting the statutory provisions to avoid absurdity. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to treat the application as valid and verify the assessee's eligibility.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which requires recording satisfaction and providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing both the assessee and the AO to present necessary documents and arguments.
The Tribunal found that for AY 2018-19, more than three years had elapsed, therefore, the sanction for the reassessment notice and order, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Relying on pronouncements by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that the sanction obtained from the Principal Commissioner was invalid, thereby quashing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order for AY 2014-15 and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for a de-novo assessment, to be decided afresh on facts and law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding no infirmity in it, given the assessee's repeated failure to present submissions or material in support of its claims during both the PCIT's proceedings and the appeal before the Tribunal. The PCIT's action to set aside the assessment for de-novo consideration was deemed justified.
The Tribunal affirmed that the eligibility for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) for interest income from investments by cooperative societies with other cooperative societies/banks is a settled legal position, supported by various judicial pronouncements. However, as the assessee claimed that the specific bifurcation of interest income from cooperative banks was not considered by the jurisdictional AO, the matter was remitted back to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the details of interest income derived from cooperative banks and allow the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) accordingly, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that for AY 2021-22, under identical facts, the Assessing Officer himself had dropped similar proceedings against the assessee. Considering this and the technical dismissal of additional evidence by the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without following the procedure of Rule 46A, specifically without recording satisfaction and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to follow Rule 46A and grant opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause of the assessee's illness and death. Recognizing that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the legal heir a fair opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order for A.Y. 2020-21 and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing to file all necessary details. The Tribunal noted that for A.Y. 2019-20, a similar ex-parte assessment was set aside by the CIT(A), and for A.Y. 2024-25, the AO had accepted the assessee's submissions without additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that when interest-free funds exceed investments, a presumption arises that investments are made from such funds. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee, a Class XI educated individual, had submitted substantial evidence including bank accounts, purchase/sale bills, and affidavits supporting his onion trading business to the CIT(A). Finding that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without verifying these documents and denying a reasonable opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a proper hearing and considering all evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative societies/banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Relying on a catena of decisions, including a Madras High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the assessee's case squarely covered and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted various documentary evidences (bank statements, ledger, ITRs) of Mahavir Oil Co. to the CIT(A), which may not have been fully considered. With no objection from the DR, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance, without addressing the merits or providing reasons, violated the legislative mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee furnishing all requisite documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis of the penalty, was still pending before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, it set aside the penalty order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication only after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)'s order dated 04.07.2025 was bad in law because the appeal concerning the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 had already been concluded by a previous CIT(A) order on 23.11.2021, when it was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the DTVSV Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without dwelling into the merits of the case and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, noting that the assessee failed to appear and provide any evidence on merit. The appeal was dismissed on the technical ground that the assessee had not paid the taxes due on the income declared in its return, as also confirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ITAT found no sufficient cause to condone the 618-day delay, stating that the Director's accident occurred much earlier and the DRT proceedings were not directly against the assessee company for the relevant period. The tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not justify the delay in filing the income tax appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed as the delay was not condoned.
The Tribunal ruled that as the foundation (assessment order) for the penalty had been set aside for fresh adjudication, the consequential penalty order must also be set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, the Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as Section 200A, which provides the machinery for intimating such fees, was amended to include it only from that date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fees.
The Tribunal found that the application was filed well within the prescribed time limit and its rejection was based on a technical ground of delay, not merits. It set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter to the CIT (Exemption) with a direction to treat the application as timely and decide it afresh on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, the Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as Section 200A, which provides the machinery for intimating such fees, was amended to include it only from that date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fees.
Following the pronouncements by the Hon'ble Karnataka and Sikkim High Courts, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a Co-operative Society from its investments with other Co-operative Banks is indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claimed deduction for the Assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had already submitted some details and expressed readiness to provide further information to the CIT, Exemption, Pune. Recognizing the importance of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT's rejection order and remand the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT, Exemption, Pune was directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide the registration application on its merits after considering all furnished facts and relevant legal provisions.