Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal condoned a 363-day delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the alleged cash investment of Rs. 40 lakh pertained to F.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011-12) and not the year under consideration, and verified the actual cash component was less. The sources for cheque payments (SBI Housing Loan) and stamp duty (loan from brother and joint contributions) were adequately explained, leading to the deletion of the entire addition of Rs. 73,62,600 made u/s 69.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A (clause (c)) by the Finance Act, 2015, is prospective in nature. Therefore, the Revenue authorities are empowered to levy a fee under Section 234E only for defaults committed on or after 01.06.2015. Since the assessee's return was processed before this effective date, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to impose the said fee.
The Tribunal, citing a Delhi High Court judgment, restored all legal and factual issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) must provide the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party whose statement was used, a copy of the material found during the survey, and ensure a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the 'reasonable cause' of the trustee's health issues. It held that the CIT (Exemption) deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration, with instructions to provide a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that a primary credit co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from its investments with other cooperative banks, following various ITAT and Supreme Court decisions. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the option under Section 115BAB is exercised and accepted for the first year, it continues to apply for subsequent assessment years. The CPC erred in not applying the concessional rate without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that it was practically impossible for the assessee to file the application by 30.09.2024 given that the preceding approval was granted on 14.02.2025. Noting the assessee's valid registration under section 12AB(1)(b) for various assessment years and the absence of any discrepancy on merits, the Tribunal concluded there was no intentional delay and set aside the order of the CIT (Exemption).
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found no merit in the CIT (Exemption)'s rejection, acknowledging that the delay was unavoidable as the previous approval was granted after the prescribed filing deadline. Considering there was no intentional delay and the assessee also held registration under section 12AB(1)(b), the Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemption) to grant the approval under section 80G(5)(ii). This decision was supported by a similar previous ruling of the Tribunal.
The ITAT found 'reasonable cause' for the 127-day delay, noting it was not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from it. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to pass a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the 'reasonable cause' of the trustee's health issues. It held that the CIT (Exemption) deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration, with instructions to provide a fair hearing.
The Tribunal found the ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A)/NFAC unjustified, set aside the order, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the assessee to comply with notices and submit documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's recording of satisfaction but found merit in the assessee's argument that most exempt income came from Mutual Funds managed by experts, requiring minimal effort from the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Jurisdictional AO to verify investment details, specifically excluding Mutual Fund investments before reapplying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A.
The ITAT found the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for the delay, which was not intentional, and condoned the delay. Following Supreme Court precedents, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT found the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for the delay, which was not intentional, and condoned the delay. Following Supreme Court precedents, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act can only be allowed if claimed in a valid return of income. Since the assessee's return was invalid due to late filing, the claim for deduction under Section 80P was rightly disallowed. The Tribunal also noted that a notice under Section 143(2) is not required for an invalid return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by responding to notices and producing documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC with directions to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted the insertion of a proviso in section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024, which allows the Commissioner to condone delay for reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded both the applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, distinguishing the assessee from commercial concerns relied upon by the Revenue. It found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT, Exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and remanded both the registration and approval matters back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Both the appeal against the quantum assessment and the connected penalty appeal under section 271(1)(c) were restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Both the appeal against the quantum assessment and the connected penalty appeal under section 271(1)(c) were restored for de novo adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on all grounds, after providing the assessee a proper hearing and requiring her to produce all relevant documents.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) issued back-to-back notices for hearing within a short period of 13 days, which was not a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, being satisfied with the reasons provided. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without addressing the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate her case.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB had subsequently been restored to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for reconsideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the 80G(5) application and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) to decide the issue afresh, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal solely by relying on the Assessing Officer's order and without applying its mind to the assessee's submissions and supporting documents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh, considering the facts and law, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present documents and evidence. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
Following a previous Tribunal order for the same assessee in AY 2018-19, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also instructed to comply and produce relevant documents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred by remanding the case to the Assessing Officer without adjudicating all grounds of appeal, both factual and legal, as required by section 250(6) of the IT Act. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed CIT(A)-13, Pune, to decide the appeal afresh, adjudicating each ground separately through a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted the insertion of a proviso in section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024, which allows the Commissioner to condone delay for reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded both the applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain the delay.
The Tribunal noted a newly inserted proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) (effective 01.10.2024) empowering the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delays in filing such applications for reasonable cause. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter, directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the application, condone the delay, and decide afresh after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, issuing multiple notices in a short period. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal observed that both coordinate benches and the jurisdictional Bombay High Court have consistently held primary credit cooperative societies eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest and dividend income from other cooperative banks. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider legal precedents and allow the assessee to produce all relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, distinguishing the assessee from commercial concerns relied upon by the Revenue. It found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT, Exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and remanded both the registration and approval matters back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the audit report in Form 10B is a procedural requirement and does not invalidate the claim for exemption under Section 11, especially when the audit was completed before filing the return. The reliance on decisions concerning Section 10B was found to be misplaced.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that non-compliance with lower authorities was not deliberate, being due to unavoidable circumstances. Observing that the case was not adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish all requisite details/documents.
The ITAT condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), accepting it was due to the assessee's serious medical condition and not intentional. Citing Supreme Court precedents on prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits after condoning the delay. The assessee was also directed to pay a cost of ₹1,000/- for his unresponsiveness to lower authorities.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim of receiving notices after the assessment order was not properly considered by the CIT(A), and the Department provided no concrete evidence that the donation was bogus. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(E), agreeing that the trust's activities were religious and did not qualify as charitable. The ITAT noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and failure to furnish any documentary evidence to prove charitable activities or genuineness. Consequently, the ITAT found no reason to overturn the CIT(E)'s decision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that non-compliance with lower authorities was not deliberate, being due to unavoidable circumstances. Observing that the case was not adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish all requisite details/documents.