Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a hearing opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for the cash deposits and did not make any addition on that basis, a fresh notice under Section 148 was required to disallow the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). As no fresh notice was issued, the reassessment proceedings for this new issue were invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the Assessing Officer obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 151 of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society on deposits with nationalized banks, maintained for liquidity and to meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The decision relied on various precedents from the ITAT and High Courts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. It decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society on deposits with nationalized banks, maintained for liquidity and to meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The decision relied on various precedents from the ITAT and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society on deposits with nationalized banks, maintained for liquidity and to meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The decision relied on various precedents from the ITAT and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society on deposits with nationalized banks, maintained for liquidity and to meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed numerous precedents from various benches of the ITAT and High Courts.
The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act 2018 provided for a 25% tax rate if the turnover in FY 2015-16 was below Rs. 50 crore. Since the income tax return form did not have a specific column for this detail, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), indicating a lack of proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the assessee's contentions regarding duplicate entries, business receipts, and the applicability of Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section was a curable defect. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied was excessive as it was based on the total tax payable, not the actual short payment after considering TDS. The penalty was restricted to the amount of short payment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to prove the purchases, including invoices, transport permits, and ledger confirmations. The CIT(A) had erred in not considering additional evidence and in sustaining the disallowance based solely on the non-response of some suppliers to a notice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to respond to notices and provide necessary documents, and the CIT is to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section was a curable defect. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT to decide the application for registration and the consequential approval for 80G afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT to decide the application for registration and the consequential approval for 80G afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years, based on a mere change of opinion and without any new tangible material, is bad in law. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground on transfer pricing as academic after a rectification order. It allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10AA by following prior ITAT decisions. Several other grounds related to foreign tax credit and disallowances were either allowed, dismissed, or remanded for further verification.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and its violation does not adversely affect the substantive rights of the assessee. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow FTC after verification.
The Tribunal held that primary credit cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income earned from investments with other cooperative banks. This decision is based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that primary credit co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income earned from investments with other cooperative banks, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground on transfer pricing as academic after a rectification order. It allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10AA by following prior ITAT decisions. Several other grounds related to foreign tax credit and disallowances were either allowed, dismissed, or remanded for further verification.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had paid foreign tax, the claim for FTC was not properly made in the return for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had already directed a de novo assessment against the original assessment order. Therefore, the issues raised in the present appeal were also restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consider the documents submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back. The CIT was directed to condone the delay and decide the application afresh after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's prayer, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not speaking and did not consider all the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while some purchases were non-genuine, the addition should be restricted to net profit. For condemned machinery, the addition to closing stock was limited to its fair market value as scrap, not the full purchase price.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her case.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consider the assessee's documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's emphasis on substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the belated block return filed by the assessee was a valid return and not non-est. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the notice issued under Section 143(2) beyond the prescribed period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed is invalid. Consequently, the block assessment order passed under Section 158BC of the Act was held to be null and void. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PCIT Vs. Broadway Shoe Co. (supra) on the grounds that in that case, no return was filed, whereas in the present case, a belated return was filed. The Tribunal also found the case of M/s. Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Neelshw (supra) distinguishable as it was not rendered in the context of Section 158BC. As the legal ground regarding the invalidity of the block assessment was decided in favour of the assessee, other grounds were not adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) can be allowed on a pro-rata basis for eligible units, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court. The assessee's claim for deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision, stating that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, an alternative plea regarding a grace period was considered.
The CIT(Exemptions) condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. Consequently, the assessee's grievance was resolved, and they sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove service of the assessment order and did not rebut the assessee's claim of non-receipt. Therefore, there was a sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should have been taken. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that primary credit co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income earned from investments with other co-operative banks, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as not being in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the main appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and decide the matter afresh.