Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 8 of 8
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.
The Tribunal held that the time limit for rectification under Section 154 was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Therefore, the rectification order was considered valid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law, especially when all relevant facts were disclosed and the claim was made under a bonafide belief based on CA advice, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO failed to point out any incorrect documents or specific inaccurate particulars filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was not considered. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was business income, as it was explained by the assessee and supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in invoking Section 69B and Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative credit society on its investments, even in banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to its main business. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed its return of income within the time allowed under Section 139(1). Therefore, the disallowance based on a belated filing was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the appellate forum, irrespective of administrative orders. Following a previous decision involving the same assessee, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable before the Pune Bench.
The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the appellate forum, irrespective of administrative orders. Following a previous decision involving the same assessee, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable before the Pune Bench.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without pointing out any defects in the assessee's audited books of accounts or cash book. The addition based on a lower GP rate was baseless, and the addition on cash in hand was also unjustified as the cash book was filed and explained.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, including the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary information, with an adequate opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without adjudicating on the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) on interest income earned from cooperative banks. The disallowance by the AO was based on a frivolous ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal also restored the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored material filed by the assessee and not considered additional documents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding sustained additions and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and restored the matter to his file. The CIT was directed to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.