Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause based on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided the assessee with copies of replies received under Section 133(6) and had not substantiated the estimated profit rate with evidence. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside to the AO.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following favorable High Court decisions. However, for periods after June 1, 2015, the levy was upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following favorable High Court decisions. However, for periods after June 1, 2015, the levy was upheld.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially in cases of non-deliberate delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the rebate under Section 87A even if the income includes STCG taxable under Section 111A, as there was no express bar in the law for the assessment year in question. The denial was based on system logic rather than statutory mandate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had already verified the subsequent registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) and could not have granted it without verifying prior records. Therefore, the rejection was based on a misunderstanding of available records.
The Tribunal found that the 30% profit estimation was excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a 5% commission rate on gross receipts. The penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts was also deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, considering principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the 30% profit estimation was excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a 5% commission rate on gross receipts. The penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts was also deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to provide relevant documents and evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow for proper verification of facts, consideration of additional evidence, and to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was bad in law as it was issued based on unverified information from the 'Insight Portal' without proper application of mind by the AO and Pr. CIT. The reassessment proceedings were therefore vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the Assessment Order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the documents submitted by the assessee, especially as the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following favorable High Court decisions. However, for periods after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in entering the deductor's name was not an 'apparent mistake' as per Section 154, requiring elaborate verification of documents. Therefore, the rejection of the rectification application by the CPC and confirmation by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the mandatory limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exceptional category for filing the appeal.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and its own precedents, held that primary credit cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from other cooperative banks. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause and emphasizing a liberal approach for substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative credit society from funds deposited with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following various judicial precedents. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT, following Supreme Court and its own coordinate bench decisions, held that primary credit cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from deposits with other cooperative banks. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and pragmatic approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submission dated 18.11.2025, which was evidenced by an e-acknowledgement. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and does not have the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the non-compliance with notices was due to a communication gap. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without providing a proper opportunity to be heard on the specific issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding a reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The appeal was admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without providing a proper opportunity to be heard on the specific issue. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with nationalized and co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from bank deposits, which were mandatory for statutory reserves and CRR, was attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with nationalized and co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of capital asset occurred during the relevant assessment year as the assessee had not handed over legal rights to the land and had not received any consideration or constructed area. Therefore, no capital gain was taxable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
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 a fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from investments with other cooperative banks/societies. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of non-deliberate non-compliance and the principle of natural justice. It decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email, providing a valid reason for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, as the entire sale consideration was invested in a new residential property. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 50C was therefore deleted.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a hearing opportunity and allow the assessee to file necessary documents and additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the order under Section 143(1) was unsustainable due to the inconsistency regarding the Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction and verify the bonus disallowance.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from funds deposited with a bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO was directed to delete the addition made on this account.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the error was bona fide and that the mistake was a human error rectified promptly. Following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits, allowing the assessee to present necessary documents and additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of capital asset occurred during the relevant assessment year as per the JDA terms and supporting case laws. Consequently, no capital gains were taxable. Additions related to credit card payments were also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and justice-oriented approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.