Loading ITAT cases…
91 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (redrafted trust deeds) for two trusts and remanded their cases to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. For the third trust, the Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application upon submission of original trust deed details and evidence of genuine activities.
The Tribunal found that the name mismatch was likely an inadvertent error and that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain or correct it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the name mismatch might be due to inadvertence and that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain or correct it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that recognition under Section 80G cannot be granted if the trust is not registered under Section 12AB. Since the 12AB registration matters were remitted back, the 80G recognition issues were also remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 251(2) of the Act. It also noted that the genuineness of creditors was supported by subsequent year's repayment, citing a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not adequately explained the income of Rs. 65,07,102/- on account of security redemption. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, allowing the assessee to submit sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the name mismatch due to translation was not fatal, as the registration number and objects of the trust were not in dispute. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not adequately explained the income of Rs. 65,07,102/- on account of security redemption. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, allowing the assessee to submit sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 251(2) of the Act. It also noted that the genuineness of creditors was supported by subsequent year's repayment, citing a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 251(2) of the Act. It also noted that the genuineness of creditors was supported by subsequent year's repayment, citing a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 251(2) of the Act. It also noted that the genuineness of creditors was supported by subsequent year's repayment, citing a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the assessee's appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on the difference between the loan taken during the year and the total quantum of loan repaid. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had examined the case from multiple angles and found that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal found no adverse findings by the AO regarding the identity of creditors or the genuineness of transactions, except for a general reference to circular transactions without providing a chain. The Tribunal also observed that the AO neither doubted the opening loan balance nor the repayment of outstanding amounts in subsequent years, focusing only on the year-end difference, which was derived from the audit report. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in CIT Vs Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava and Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, which held that no addition can be made under section 68 if the loan has been repaid in the next year and accepted by the department, and that the AO cannot ask the assessee to further prove the genuineness of the transaction without first verifying from the lenders' income tax returns. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's objection regarding the CIT(A) accepting submissions without cross-verification, stating that it is not mandatory to obtain a remand report if the evidence is self-explanatory. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and affirmed it.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to examine the trust deed and 12AB registration certificate and pass an order accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by not considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the Section 12AB application was also under challenge and had been restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Therefore, the 80G application was also restored to the CIT(E) to be decided after the order on the 12AB application.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file the missing audited accounts for FY 2020-21 and reconsider the application afresh. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file the missing audited accounts for FY 2021-22 and other requisite details. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously directed the CIT(E) to examine the evidence and grant registration under Section 12AB. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the Section 80G(5) application back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the 12AB registration is granted, allowing the assessee to present further evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided most of the required documents but missed the accounts for FY 2021-22 due to time constraints. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the missing details and provide an opportunity for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file the missing audited accounts and other requisite details. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing before deciding the application afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided most of the required documents but missed the accounts for FY 2021-22 due to time constraints. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the missing details and provide a hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file the requisite details, including the audited accounts for FY 2021-22, and to grant an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the required details, including the missing audited accounts. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing before deciding afresh.
The Tribunal restored all grounds of appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be more vigilant in future compliance, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to provide a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the Rs. 25,00,000 as unexplained income. The assessee had provided evidence, including a supplementary deed, to show that this amount was part of the sale consideration for the agricultural land. The AO's reliance on the purchaser's statement, which was recorded ex-parte, was also questionable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing the deduction was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the AO had conducted due inquiry and taken a possible view. The Pr.CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the missing audited accounts and other required details. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a hearing before deciding the application afresh.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file the missing audited accounts for FY 2019-20 and other requisite details. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing before deciding the application afresh.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed within a reasonable time, considering it was an initial period of electronic filing. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred without a show cause notice was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete most of the additions. It found that the CIT(A) correctly identified duplication in some additions and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds for time deposits and advances, which were linked to sale proceeds of land.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief regarding the exemption of leave encashment and that the interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80TTB. Therefore, penalty under Section 270A was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were invalid and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition without any evidence. The assessee had clearly stated that no such share application money was received and provided bank statements to support this claim.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed affidavits from the contractors confirming the work, which were discarded by the lower authorities. Considering the ownership of the property was also not examined, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty order would not survive. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they were not pressing the grounds. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee is not maintaining books of account, there is no requirement to get them audited under Section 44AB. Therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for non-furnishing of an audit report cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee and his wife were eligible for a blanket exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- based on CBDT circulars and a previous Tribunal ruling. Since the total deposit was less than this amount, the entire addition was directed to be deleted.