Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for adjudication. The assessee is to be provided with an adequate opportunity to present evidence and information to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form No. 3CFA was a procedural error. Following previous decisions, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, considering the belatedly filed form.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that sales promotion and IT expenses incurred for facilitating business operations and increasing sales are revenue in nature and do not provide an enduring benefit. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restoring the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment. This provided the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details.
The Tribunal, following coordinate bench decisions, held that mere delay in filing Form 10E should not result in denial of substantial relief if the entitlement otherwise exists. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of relief.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, considering the assessee's age and lack of knowledge. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays to ensure substantial justice.
The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court judgments, held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted for condoning small delays. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as they were initiated on a time-barred notice under Section 148. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. It relied on previous consistent decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for similar issues regarding depreciation on goodwill and ESOP expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that sales promotion and IT expenses incurred for facilitating business operations and increasing sales are revenue in nature and do not provide an enduring benefit. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed a series of precedents from various judicial forums.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternate claim that if the addition is sustained, it would lead to an increase in business income, entitling the assessee to a higher deduction under Section 80P as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. Therefore, the grounds related to this claim were allowed.
The tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documentation and evidence without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding TDS disallowance and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order on bad debt recovery and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding TDS disallowance and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order on bad debt recovery and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance and failure to respond to notices, despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal also noted that there could be various reasons for non-compliance, which should not be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and is expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance and failure to respond to notices, despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal also noted that there could be various reasons for non-compliance, which should not be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and is expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance and failure to respond to notices, despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal also noted that there could be various reasons for non-compliance, which should not be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and is expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and documents. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the submitted evidence.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-compliant, there could be valid reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-compliant, there could be valid reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to allow such levy only from that date. Therefore, the levy in this case was bad-in-law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not adjudicate the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law as it was issued after the prescribed period, making the consequential reassessment also invalid.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not complied with any of the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. It also noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay. While the Tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and ideally would have set aside the CIT(A)'s order to condone the delay, it considered the submissions made by the assessee's counsel. The assessee's counsel argued that the entire tax liability had been paid by the assessee's brother, Mr. Sudhir Gaokar. However, these facts were not presented before the Assessing Officer. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present all documents. The issue of whether the notice under Section 148A was bad in law and the merits of the capital gains declaration were not definitively decided but were to be adjudicated afresh by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary declarations. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not independently verified the assessee's contention that no Section 54F deduction was claimed. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, citing Supreme Court judgments on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, especially since the assessee disputed the additions. Following a coordinate bench decision, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance and failure to respond to notices, despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal also noted that there could be various reasons for non-compliance, which should not be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and is expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal issues had been restored to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty issue was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted the additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file additional evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted the additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file additional evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is paramount and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application deserved to be condoned and the application required examination on merits, following a precedent. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside for de-novo adjudication.
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) must provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence and information to substantiate its charitable activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act by not adjudicating on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order and the assessee had failed to comply with notices before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT's order. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT (Exemption).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT's order. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Exemption) as no contrary view was brought to its notice. The assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E) for verification of its activities.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 solely on account of delay in filing Form 10B was not justified, following a Gujarat High Court decision. The Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's order.