Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2130 days, finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances explained by the assessee. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue Representative and noting the assessee's absence and lack of submissions, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the intimation order and the delay was due to reasonable cause. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee submitting additional evidence to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80P, which was previously denied for lack of verifiable proof.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for interest income as it was already accounted for in the books. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that a significant portion was brought forward from preceding years and restored the issue to the AO for verification, partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A was crucial and went to the root of the matter. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee did not appear or make any submissions, the Tribunal could not draw any inferences in their favor and dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned a 6-day delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of submissions, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter back to its file. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issues of denial of deduction under Chapter VIA and loss from house property back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside by a previous Tribunal order for denovo adjudication, the penalty cannot be sustained. The penalty order was consequently set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case and file requisite details. The assessee is directed to cooperate without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a sub-clause in the application for registration is a technical error and should not be fatal. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to allow the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 12A registration was already restored to the CIT(Exemption) in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the application for Section 80G approval should also be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee did not appear or make any submissions, the Tribunal could not draw any inferences in their favor and dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application due to filing under the wrong section/code was hyper-technical. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the new registration certificate as additional evidence. It set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as it was a duplicate filing and therefore infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the legal issue raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice u/s 148A(b) before adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the assessee's objections to the DVO's report in the rectification proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause and a coordinate bench's decision. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the 'reasonable cause' shown by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of 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 confirmed the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and dismissed the appeal. This was due to the assessee's non-appearance on multiple hearing dates and failure to provide supporting documents for his contentions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to submit details. The CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report and adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an opportunity of rebuttal to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of wrong facts, as the notice under Section 148 incorrectly mentioned a search action in the assessee's case. Citing precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, agreeing that the explanation for the cash deposits was not corroborated by any evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was sustained.
The Tribunal held that there was business expediency for the assessee to advance funds to its sister concerns at a lower interest rate, considering its significant shareholding and potential for future growth. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh after granting the assessee a maximum of three opportunities to furnish documentary evidence for the claimed deductions and loss.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, following numerous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the matter should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the commercial tax liability crystallized during the year and was a genuine business expense. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed submissions and documents provided by the assessee regarding its business as a Cooperative Credit Society and the sources of its cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeals as infructuous and the Department's lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and therefore had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. The assessee's reasons for delay, including being illiterate, unaware of faceless proceedings, and suffering from hypertension, were considered potentially valid.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period, prior to December 15, 2016, and recorded in the books of account, are not liable for addition under Section 69A. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision on a similar issue.
The Tribunal condoned the 400-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating it was neither deliberate nor intentional. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. The issue of agricultural income was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the additional details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It then set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(Exemption) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a sub-clause in the application was an inadvertent mistake and not fatal. The CIT ought to have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a sub-clause in the application was an inadvertent mistake and not fatal. The CIT ought to have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the delay was not intentional and that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits as required by law.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for fresh adjudication. It emphasized providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, citing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found the 10% GP estimation arbitrary, considering the assessee's past financial trend and audited books. It deemed it proper to estimate the GP at 7% instead of 10%.